172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12540823)
21. [The reduction of the radiation dosage by means of storage phosphor-film radiography compared to a conventional film-screen system with a grid cassette on a skull phantom].
Heyne JP; Merbold H; Sehner J; Neumann R; Freesmeyer M; Jonetz-Mentzel L; Kaiser WA
Rofo; 1999 Jul; 171(1):54-9. PubMed ID: 10464506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Flat panel digital radiography compared with storage phosphor computed radiography: assessment of dose versus image quality in phantom studies.
Fischbach F; Ricke J; Freund T; Werk M; Spors B; Baumann C; Pech MJ; Felix R
Invest Radiol; 2002 Nov; 37(11):609-14. PubMed ID: 12393973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. AEC set-up optimisation with computed radiography imaging.
Mazzocchi S; Belli G; Busoni S; Gori C; Menchi I; Salucci P; Taddeucci A; Zatelli G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):169-73. PubMed ID: 16461503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Understanding the relative sensitivity of radiographic screens to scattered radiation.
Yip KL; Whiting BR; Kocher TE; Trauernicht DP; Van Metter RL
Med Phys; 1996 Oct; 23(10):1727-37. PubMed ID: 8946369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Low dose high energy x-ray in-line phase sensitive imaging prototype: Investigation of optimal geometric conditions and design parameters.
Ghani MU; Yan A; Wong MD; Li Y; Ren L; Wu X; Liu H
J Xray Sci Technol; 2015; 23(6):667-82. PubMed ID: 26756405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The impact of increased Al filtration on x-ray tube loading and image quality in diagnostic radiology.
Behrman RH
Med Phys; 2003 Jan; 30(1):69-78. PubMed ID: 12557981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparison of computerized digital and film-screen radiography: response to variation in imaging kVp.
Broderick NJ; Long B; Dreesen RG; Cohen MD; Cory DA; Katz BP; Kalasinski LA
Pediatr Radiol; 1992; 22(5):346-9. PubMed ID: 1408442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Sensitometric comparison of direct- and indirect-exposure films used in intraoral radiography.
Hashimoto K; Thunthy KH; Iwai K; Ejima K; Weinberg R
J Nihon Univ Sch Dent; 1992 Jun; 34(2):106-10. PubMed ID: 1500950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A phantom approach to find the optimal technical parameters for plain chest radiography.
Vassileva J
Br J Radiol; 2004 Aug; 77(920):648-53. PubMed ID: 15326041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel x-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy.
Chotas HG; Ravin CE
Radiology; 2001 Mar; 218(3):679-82. PubMed ID: 11230639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Dual-energy cardiac imaging: an image quality and dose comparison for a flat-panel detector and x-ray image intensifier.
Ducote JL; Xu T; Molloi S
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jan; 52(1):183-96. PubMed ID: 17183135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography.
Bacher K; Smeets P; Bonnarens K; De Hauwere A; Verstraete K; Thierens H
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Oct; 181(4):923-9. PubMed ID: 14500203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Interobserver agreement and performance score comparison in quality control using a breast phantom: screen-film mammography vs computed radiography.
Shimamoto K; Ikeda M; Satake H; Ishigaki S; Sawaki A; Ishigaki T
Eur Radiol; 2002 Sep; 12(9):2192-7. PubMed ID: 12195469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Relative speeds of Kodak computed radiography phosphors and screen-film systems.
Huda W; Rill LN; Bruner AP
Med Phys; 1997 Oct; 24(10):1621-8. PubMed ID: 9350716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Threshold perception performance with computed and screen-film radiography: implications for chest radiography.
Dobbins JT; Rice JJ; Beam CA; Ravin CE
Radiology; 1992 Apr; 183(1):179-87. PubMed ID: 1549669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Effects of reduced exposure on computed radiography: comparison of nodule detection accuracy with conventional and asymmetric screen-film radiographs of a chest phantom.
Kimme-Smith C; Aberle DR; Sayre JW; Hart EM; Greaves SM; Brown K; Young DA; Deseran MD; Johnson T; Johnson SL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Aug; 165(2):269-73. PubMed ID: 7618538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Effects of radiographic techniques on the low-contrast detail detectability performance of digital radiography systems.
Alsleem H; U P; Mong KS; Davidson R
Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 25002641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Image quality vs. radiation dose for a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study.
Geijer H; Beckman KW; Andersson T; Persliden J
Eur Radiol; 2001; 11(9):1704-9. PubMed ID: 11511892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Correlation of image quality with exposure index and processing protocol in a computed radiography system.
Tsalafoutas IA; Blastaris GA; Moutsatsos AS; Chios PS; Efstathopoulos EP
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 130(2):162-71. PubMed ID: 18245792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
